However, the simple FORTH kernel (I think it was fig-FORTH but my memory is hazy) didn't use DOS calls at all, and only screen write and direct disk access BIOS calls (that was INT21, wasn't it?). I don't see how the PC or DOS design could have slowed it down by much compared with the CP/M Z-80 version. On Sunday, June 16, 2024 at 10:02:49 AM UTC-4 David Szent-Györgyi wrote:
> The original IBM PC was a quick-and-dirty design; performance was not a > goal. > > FORTH is an opposite: Simplicity and flexibility are at the heart of its > design, with carefully considered access to assembly language where > required for performance or access to bare metal. The design requires > trading conventional convenience for that. More conventional schemes for > access to bare metal involve complex, fragile, non-portable and expensive > platform development tools. Given engineering talent able to use FORTH, > FORTH makes sense. The wide-open architecture of FORTH requires discipline, > documentation, and careful management to write code that not only runs but > can be read and maintained. > > I haven't made a career of embedded systems work, but I have done a few > small projects of that sort, and I think that FORTH holds its own in the > right hands. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/ab5182b8-9869-4319-b0fe-28b8688d2a19n%40googlegroups.com.
